Talk:Open-source software/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move 13 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Open-source software → Open source software – "open source software" is the more common spelling in the English language. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open-source+software%2Copen+source+software&year_start=1970&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOPEN%20SOURCE%20SOFTWARE%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3 Llightex (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also used most commonly by the actual OSS community. https://github.com/open-source, https://opensource.guide/, https://opensource.org/
Oppose: The numbers are always going to be skewed towards "open source" because of lazy writers: Hitting the space bar is more convenient than reaching for the hyphen. I prefer "open-source" because in larger expressions like "free and open-source software" it makes clear that the two words "open" and "source" belong together and form a single adjective. Microsoft's style guide and Compute Hope's advice happen to align perfectly with my view. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Several other articles would also have to be moved to maintain consistency, some of which can be found at this 12-year-old discussion. I found some more: Open-source hardware, Open-source bounty, Open-source license, Open-source governance, Open-source ventilator, List of open-source health software, and Open-source Unicode typefaces. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dexxor, @Extraordinary Writ: I don't think it's because of "lazy writers", but rather a genuine difference in practice in spelling it with a hyphen versus not. For example, Google's style guide advocates not using hyphens (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/comms/style-guide); Apache doesn't use hyphens (https://www.apache.org/); OpenSSF doesn't use a hyphen (https://openssf.org/); neither has OSI even as far back 2002 (https://web.archive.org/web/20021004120021/http://www.opensource.org/index.php); and neither has Congress done so (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4913/text).
When choosing which practice to use (hyphen or not?) I believe the more common term should be used. The same test should be applied to the examples you cite for consistency ("open-source hardware", "open-source bounty", etc.). Some of them ("open-source hardware" for example) may need to be moved, but others will likely stay the same. Simply put, by picking the most common usage, you can stick with both articles named, for example, "open source software" and "open-source ventilator". Llightex (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
For your point about "free and open-source software"; we may prefer a particular spelling to avoid ambiguity (just like some prefer to use the Oxford comma), but I don't think that's relevant if we have an overriding common usage. In this case, if you look at the n-grams, "free and open source software" is used far more -- "free and open-source software" does not even make the n-gram lists because it's so infrequently used. The GNU.org open source philosophy essays (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html) also use the unhyphenated term. Llightex (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. Based on our general article title formatting policies and basic English grammar rules, compound adjectives like this are generally hyphenated. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Wikipedia has no firm rules, when WP:COMMONNAME would conflict with formatting policies, it makes sense to me to give the common name policy precedence. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    • COMMONNAME has nothing to do with typographic style questions. COMMONNAME is what tells us whether to use David Johansen or Buster Poindexter. Whether to hyphenate is controlled by MOS:HYPHEN. We already know that "open[-]source software" (styled either way) is the common name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The MOS applies to article titles, and MOS:HYPHEN makes clear that compound modifiers such as this one generally need a hyphen. Personally I'm skeptical of the notion that COMMONNAME should take precedence on style issues (see here for some differing perspectives on that question), but even accepting that it should, the purpose of COMMONNAME is to produce titles that meet the criteria, and in this case the hyphenated version is a bit more recognizable and much more consistent (see Dexxor's comments above) with only a slight loss (at worst) in the naturalness department. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. It's like when we decide whether to use a hyphen or a dash in a title. Or like how we don't generally capitalize short prepositions in titles even if a majority of sources do because of our general article title formatting rules, we also generally hyphenate compound adjectives in titles such as this regardless of what a majority of sources do. This is a formatting/English grammar issue, not a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. There is nothing magically special about this case, and WP doesn't care whether other publishers under their own style guides know how to hyphenate properly or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a misery though. My understanding of the hyphen rules is: "open-source software" is software with the attribute of being open-source. "Open source software" would be something different, software about the phenomenon dubbed "open source". This distinction becomes more apparent when you turn to other uses, e.g. "open-source strategies" vs "open source strategies". The first are strategies that are available as open source, the second are strategies about open source, the phenomenon. Open-source tooling is tools that are open source, open source tooling are tools for open source (like GitHub, which is not provided as open-source software). Dirk Riehle (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request add info

Hi, I am a paid student researcher at the University of Virginia. I have some content I would like to add to the article. Please review it at User:Policy1257/sandbox.

If anyone has questions about the project then check out this link Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia/2023 Wiki99 for open source software Policy1257 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


Propose changes to section

I propose to change this section Open-source_software#Development_model With this text:

Extended content

In his 1997 essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar, open-source influential contributor Eric S. Raymond suggests a model for developing OSS known as the bazaar model.[1] Raymond likens the development of software by traditional methodologies to building a cathedral, with careful isolated work by individuals or small groups.[1] He suggests that all software should be developed using the bazaar style, with differing agendas and approaches.[1]

In the traditional model of development, which he called the cathedral model, development takes place in a centralized way.[1] Roles are clearly defined.[1] Roles include people dedicated to designing (the architects), people responsible for managing the project, and people responsible for implementation.[1] Traditional software engineering follows the cathedral model.[1]

The bazaar model, however, is different.[1] In this model, roles are not clearly defined.[1] Some proposed characteristics of software developed using the bazaar model should exhibit the following patterns:[2]

Users should be treated as co-developers: The users are treated like co-developers and so they should have access to the source code of the software.[2] Furthermore, users are encouraged to submit additions to the software, code fixes for the software, bug reports, documentation, etc. Having more co-developers increases the rate at which the software evolves.[2] Linus's law states that given enough eyeballs all bugs are shallow.[2] This means that if many users view the source code, they will eventually find all bugs and suggest how to fix them.[2] Some users have advanced programming skills, and furthermore, each user's machine provides an additional testing environment.[2] This new testing environment offers the ability to find and fix a new bug.[2]

Early releases: The first version of the software should be released as early as possible so as to increase one's chances of finding co-developers early.[2]

Frequent integration: Code changes should be integrated (merged into a shared code base) as often as possible so as to avoid the overhead of fixing a large number of bugs at the end of the project life cycle.[2][3] Some open-source projects have nightly builds where integration is done automatically.[2]

Several versions: There should be at least two versions of the software.[2] There should be a buggier version with more features and a more stable version with fewer features.[2] The buggy version (also called the development version) is for users who want the immediate use of the latest features and are willing to accept the risk of using code that is not yet thoroughly tested.[2] The users can then act as co-developers, reporting bugs and providing bug fixes.[2][3]

High modularization: The general structure of the software should be modular allowing for parallel development on independent components.[2]

Dynamic decision-making structure: There is a need for a decision-making structure, whether formal or informal, that makes strategic decisions depending on changing user requirements and other factors.[2] Compare with extreme programming.[2]

The process of Open source development begins with a requirements elicitation where developers consider if they should add new features or if a bug needs to be fixed in their project.[3] This is established by communicating with the OSS community through avenues such as bug reporting and tracking or mailing lists and project pages.[3] Next, OSS developers select or are assigned to a task and identify a solution. Because there are often many different possible routes for solutions in OSS, the best solution must be chosen with careful consideration and sometimes even peer feedback.[3] The developer then begins to develop and commit the code.[3] The code is then tested and reviewed by peers.[3] Developers can edit and evolve their code through feedback from continuous integration.[3] Once the leadership and community are satisfied with the whole project, it can be partially released and user instruction can be documented.[3] If the project is ready to be released, it is frozen, with only serious bug fixes or security repairs occurring.[3] Finally, the project is fully released and only changed through minor bug fixes.[3]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Raymond, Eric (2005-10-03). "The Cathedral and the Bazaar (originally published in Volume 3, Number 3, March 1998)". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v0i0.1472. ISSN 1396-0466.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q "Empirical Software Engineering Research on Free/Libre/Open Source Software". ieeexplore.ieee.org. doi:10.1109/icsm.2006.25. Retrieved 2023-11-21.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Napoleao, Bianca M.; Petrillo, Fabio; Halle, Sylvain (2020). "Open Source Software Development Process: A Systematic Review". IEEE 24th International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC). IEEE: 135–144. doi:10.1109/EDOC49727.2020.00025. ISBN 978-1-7281-6473-1.

Comments? --Policy1257 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I made the changes, anyone can see them at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=1196813666&oldid=1194558578

--Policy1257 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to delete poor references

Review of the citations in english wikipedia's page for open source software

I have evaluated the references used in this article and propose to start removing some of the out of date or not useful ones. What are anyone's thoughts on this? --Policy1257 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite of comparison section

I propose a rewrite to the comparison section.

Extended content

Comparisons with other software licensing/development models

Closed source / proprietary software

Main article: Comparison of open-source and closed-source software

Open source software differs from proprietary software in that it is publicly available, the license requires no fees, modifications and distributions are allowed under license specifications.[1] All of this works to prevent a monopoly on any OSS product, which is a goal of proprietary software.[1] Proprietary software limits their customers' choices to either committing to using that software, upgrading it or switching to other software, forcing customers to have their software preferences impacted by their monetary cost.[1] The ideal case scenario for the proprietary software vendor would be a lock-in, where the customer does not or cannot switch software due to these costs and continues to buy products from that vendor.[1]

Within proprietary software, bug fixes can only be provided by the vendor, moving platforms requires another purchase and the existence of the product relies on the vendor, who can discontinue it at any point.[2] Additionally, proprietary software does not provide its source code and cannot be altered by users.[2] For businesses, this can pose a security risk and source of frustration, as they cannot specialize the product to their needs, and there may be hidden threats or information leaks within the software that they cannot access or change.[2]

Free Software

Main article: Alternative terms for free software

See also: Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

Under OSI's definition, open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code.[3] It is an explicit feature of open source that it puts very few restrictions on the use or distribution by any organization or user, in order to enable the rapid evolution of the software.[3]

Richard Stallman, leader of the Free software movement and member of the free software foundation opposes the term open source being applied to what they refer to as free software.[4] Although he agrees that the two terms describe almost the same category of software, Stallman considers equating the terms incorrect and misleading.[4] He believes that the main difference is that by choosing one term over the other lets others know about what one's goals are: development (open source) or a social stance (free software).[5] Nevertheless, there is significant overlap between open source software and free software.[4] Stallman also opposes the professed pragmatism of the Open Source Initiative, as he fears that the free software ideals of freedom and community are threatened by compromising on the FSF's idealistic standards for software freedom.[5] The FSF considers free software to be a subset of open-source software, and Richard Stallman explained that DRM software, for example, can be developed as open source, despite how it restricts its users, and thus does not qualify as free software.[4]

The FSF said that the term open source fosters an ambiguity of a different kind such that it confuses the mere availability of the source with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute it.[4] On the other hand, the term free software was criticized for the ambiguity of the word free, which was seen as discouraging for business adoption, and for the historical ambiguous usage of the term.[5]

Developers have used the alternative terms Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), or Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS), consequently, to describe open-source software that is also free software.[6]

Source-available software

Main article: Source-available software

Software can be distributed with source code, which is a code that is readable.[7] Software is source available when this source code is available to be seen.[7] However to be source available or FOSS, the source code does not need to be accessible to all, just the users of that software.[7] While all FOSS software is source available because this is a requirement made by the Open Source Definition, not all source available software is FOSS.[7] For example, if the software doesn't meet other aspects of the Open Source Definition such as permitted modification or redistribution, even if the source code is available, the software is not FOSS.[7]

Open-sourcing

A recent trend within software companies is open sourcing, or transitioning their previous proprietary software into open source software through releasing it under a open source license.[8][9] Examples of companies who have done this are Google, Microsoft and Apple.[8] Additionally, open sourcing can refer to programming open source software or installing open source software.[9] Open sourcing can be beneficial in multiple ways, such as attracting more external contributors who bring new perspectives and problem solving capabilities. [8] The downsides of open sourcing include the work that has to be done to maintaining the new community, such as making the base code easily understandable, setting up communication channels for new developers and creating documentation to allow new developers to easily join.[8] However, a review of several open sourced projects found that although a newly open sourced project attracts many newcomers, a great amount are likely to soon leave the project and their forks are also likely to not be impactful.[8]

Other

Other concepts that may share some similarities to open source are shareware, public domain software, freeware, and software viewers/readers that are freely available but do not provide source code.[2] However, these differ from open source software in access to source code, licensing, copyright and fees.[2]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Zhu, Kevin Xiaoguo; Zhou, Zach Zhizhong (2012). "Research Note —Lock-In Strategy in Software Competition: Open-Source Software vs. Proprietary Software". Information Systems Research. 23 (2): 536–545. doi:10.1287/isre.1110.0358. ISSN 1047-7047.
  2. ^ a b c d e Bretthauer, David (2001). "Open Source Software: A History". Information Technology and Libraries. 21 (1).
  3. ^ a b "The Open Source Definition (Annotated)". Open Source Initiative. 2006-07-24. Retrieved 2023-12-18.
  4. ^ a b c d e Stallman, Richard (2007). "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software".{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ^ a b c Stallman, Richard M.; Gay, Joshua (2002). Free software, free society. Boston (Mass.): Free software foundation. ISBN 978-1-882114-98-6.
  6. ^ Brasseur, V. M. (2018). Forge your future with open source: build your skills, build your network, build the future of technology. The pragmatic programmers. Raleigh, North Carolina: The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 978-1-68050-301-2.
  7. ^ a b c d e Fortunato, Laura; Galassi, Mark (2021-05-17). "The case for free and open source software in research and scholarship". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 379 (2197). doi:10.1098/rsta.2020.0079. ISSN 1364-503X.
  8. ^ a b c d e Pinto, Gustavo; Steinmacher, Igor; Dias, Luiz Felipe; Gerosa, Marco (2018). "On the challenges of open-sourcing proprietary software projects". Empirical Software Engineering. 23 (6): 3221–3247. doi:10.1007/s10664-018-9609-6. ISSN 1382-3256.
  9. ^ a b Ågerfalk; Fitzgerald (2008). "Outsourcing to an Unknown Workforce: Exploring Opensurcing as a Global Sourcing Strategy". MIS Quarterly. 32 (2): 385. doi:10.2307/25148845. ISSN 0276-7783.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the changes, anyone can see them at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=prev&oldid=1204997356

--Policy1257 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


Proposal to add a section of representative software examples

I think we should add a section showing some examples of notable open source software projects. Please take a look at my page for a draft.

User:Policy1257/sandbox#Representative Examples of Open Source Software Projects Policy1257 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Such lists of 'samples' inevitably grow out of control as people all add their favorite software projects to the list. We are better off without it. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Good point! I will hold off on adding this for now. Policy1257 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite of the history section

I propose a rewrite of the history section, instead titling it Open Software Movement and splitting it into two categories, history and future. I also propose we move it further down the page, before the comparison section, as generally history sections come later in articles.

Extended content

Open Software Movement

History

Further information: History of free and open-source software

In the early days of computing, such as the 1950s and into the 1960s, programmers and developers shared software to learn from each other and evolve the field of computing.[1] For example, Unix included the operating system source code for users.[1] Eventually, the commercialization of software in the years 1970–1980 began to prevent this practice.[1] However, academics still often developed software collaboratively.[1]

In response, the open source movement was born out of the work of skilled programmer enthusiasts, widely referred to as hackers or hacker culture.[2] One of these enthusiasts, Richard Stallman, was a driving force behind the free software movement, which would later allow for the open source movement.[2] In 1984, he resigned from MIT to create a free operating system, GNU, after the programmer culture in his lab was stifled by proprietary software preventing source code from being shared and improved upon.[2] GNU was UNIX compatible, meaning that the programmer enthusiasts would still be familiar with how it worked.[2] However, it quickly became apparent that there was some confusion with the label Stallman had chosen of free software, which he described as free as in free speech, not free beer, referring to the meaning of free as freedom rather than price.[2] He later expanded this concept of freedom to the four essential freedoms.[2] Through GNU, open source norms of incorporating others' source code, community bug fixes and suggestions of code for new features appeared.[2] In 1985, Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to promote changes in software and to help write GNU.[2] In order to prevent his work from being used in proprietary software, Stallman created the concept of copyleft, which allowed the use of his work by anyone, but under specific terms.[2] To do this, he created the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) in 1989, which was updated in 1991.[2] In 1991, GNU was combined with the Linux kernel written by Linus Torvalds, as a kernel was missing in GNU.[3] The operating system is now usually referred to as Linux.[2] Throughout this whole period, there were many other free software projects and licenses around at the time, all with different ideas of what the concept of free software was and should be, as well as the morality of proprietary software, such as Berkely Software Distribution, TeX, and the X Windows System.[4]

As free software developed, the Free Software Foundation began to look how to bring free software ideas and perceived benefits to the commercial software industry.[4] It was concluded that FSF's social activism was not appealing to companies and they needed a way to rebrand the free software movement to emphasize the business potential of sharing and collaborating on software source code.[4] The term open source was suggested by Christine Peterson in 1998 at a meeting of supporters of free software.[2] Many in the group felt the name free software was confusing to newcomers and holding back industry interest and they readily accepted the new designation of open source, creating the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the OSI definition of what open source software is.[2] The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) definition is now recognized by several governments internationally as the standard or de facto definition.[3] The definition was based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written and adapted primarily by Bruce Perens.[5] The OSI definition differed from the free software definition in that it allows the inclusion of proprietary software and allows more liberties in its licensing.[2] Some, such as Stallman, agree more with the original concept of free software as a result because it takes a strong moral stance against proprietary software, through there is much overlap between the two movements in terms of the operation of the software.[2]

While the Open Source Initiative sought to encourage the use of the new term and evangelize the principles it adhered to, commercial software vendors found themselves increasingly threatened by the concept of freely distributed software and universal access to an application's source code, with an executive of Microsoft calling open source an intellectual property destroyer in 2001.[6] However, while free and open-source software (FOSS) has historically played a role outside of mainstream private software development, companies as large as Microsoft have begun to develop official open source presences on the Internet.[6] IBM, Oracle, and State Farm are just a few of the companies with a serious public stake in today's competitive open source market, marking a significant shift in the corporate philosophy concerning the development of FOSS.[6]

Future

The future of the open source software community, and the free software community by extension, has become successful if not confused about what it stands for.[7] For example, Android and Ubuntu are examples milestones of success in the open source software rise to prominence from the sidelines of technological innovation as it existed in the early 2000s.[7] However, some in the community consider them failures in their representation of OSS due to issues such as the downplaying of the OSS center of Android by Google and its partners, the use of an Apache license that allowed forking and resulted in a loss of opportunities for collaboration within Android, the prioritization of convivence over freedom in Ubuntu, and features within Ubuntu that track users for marketing purposes.[7]

The use of OSS has become more common in business with 78% of companies reporting that they run all or part of their operations on FOSS.[7] The popularity of OSS has risen to the point that Microsoft, a once detractor of OSS, has included its use in their systems.[7] However, this success has raised concerns that will determine the future of OSS as the community must answer questions such as what OSS is, what should it be, and what should be done to protect it, if it even needs protecting.[7] All in all, while the free and open source revolution has slowed to a perceived equilibrium in the market place, that does not mean it is over as many theoretical discussions must take place to determine its future.[7]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Maracke, Catharina (2019). "Free and Open Source Software and FRAND‐based patent licenses: How to mediate between Standard Essential Patent and Free and Open Source Software". The Journal of World Intellectual Property. 22 (3–4): 78–102. doi:10.1111/jwip.12114. ISSN 1422-2213.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Bretthauer, David (2001). "Open Source Software: A History". Information Technology and Libraries. 21 (1).
  3. ^ a b "International Authority & Recognition". Open Source Initiative. 2015-04-21. Retrieved 2023-12-18.
  4. ^ a b c Fogel, Karl (2006). Producing open source software: how to run a successful free software project (1. Aufl., [Nachdr.] ed.). Beijing Köln: O'Reilly. ISBN 978-0-596-00759-1.
  5. ^ Kelty, Christopher (2008). Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-8900-2.
  6. ^ a b c Miller, Keith W.; Voas, Jeffrey; Costello, Tom (2010). "Free and Open Source Software". IT Professional. 12 (6): 14–16. doi:10.1109/mitp.2010.147. ISSN 1520-9202.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g >Tozzi, Christopher (2017). For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution. United States: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262341189.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the changes, anyone can see them here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=prev&oldid=1204999963

Thanks! --Policy1257 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite sections

I propose a opportunities for participation section to replace the current applications and adoptions section and the addition of a legal and economic issues section.

Extended content
Extended content

Legal and Economic Issues

Licensing

Main article: Open-source license

Further information: Free software license

See also: Free and open-source software § Licensing, and Software license  

FOSS products are generally licensed under two types of licenses: permissive licensing and copyleft licensing.[1] Both of these types of licenses are different than proprietary licensing in that they can allow more users access to the software and allow for the creation of derivative works as specified by the terms of the specific license, as each license has its own rules.[1] Permissive licenses allow recipients of the software to implement the author's copyright rights without having to use the same license for distribution.[1] Examples of this type of license include the BSD, MIT, and Apache licenses.[1] Copyleft licenses are different in that they require recipients to use the same license for at least some parts of the distribution of their works.[1] Strong copyleft licenses require all derivative works to use the same license while weak copyleft licenses require the use of the same license only under certain conditions.[1] Examples of this type of license include the GNU family of licenses, and the MPL and EPL licenses.[1] The similarities between these two categories of licensing include that they provide a broad grant of copyright rights, require that recipients preserve copyright notices, and that a copy of the license is provided to recipients with the code.[1]

One important legal precedent for open source software was created in 2008, when the Jacobson v Katzer case enforced terms of the Artistic license, including attribution and identification of modifications.[1] The ruling of this case cemented enforcement under copyright law when the conditions of the license were not followed.[1] Because of the similarity of the Artistic license to other open source software licenses, the ruling created a precedent that applied widely.[1]

Examples of free software license / open source licenses include Apache License, BSD license, GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, MIT License, Eclipse Public License and Mozilla Public License.[1]

Legal Issues

Several gray areas exist within software regulation that have great impact on open source software, such as if software is a good or service, what can be considered a modification, governance through contract vs license, ownership and right of use.[1] While there have been developments on these issues, they often lead to even more questions.[1] The existence of these uncertainties in regulation has a negative impact on industries involved in technologies as a whole.[1]

Within the legal history of software as a whole, there was much debate on whether to protect it as intellectual property under patent law, copyright law or establishing a unique regulation.[1] Ultimately, copyright law became the standard with computer programs being considered a form of literary work, with some tweaks of unique regulation.[1]

Software is generally considered source code and object code, with both being protectable, though there is legal variety in this definition.[1] Some jurisdictions attempt to expand or reduce this conceptualization for their own purposes.[1] For example, The European Court of Justice defines a computer program as not including the functionality of a program, the programing language, or the format of data files.[1] By limiting protections of the different aspects of software, the law favors an open source approach to software use.[1] The US especially has an open approach to software, with most open-source licenses originating there.[1] However, this has increased the focus on patent rights within these licenses, which has seen backlash from the OSS community, who prefer other forms of IP protection.[1]

Another issue includes technological protection measures (TPM) and digital rights management (DRM) techniques which were internationally legally recognized and protected in the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Treaty.[1] Open source software proponents disliked these technologies as they constrained end-users potentially beyond copyright law.[1] Europe responded to such complaints by putting TPM under legal controls, representing a victory for OSS supporters.[1]

Economic/Business Implications

In open source communities, instead of owning the software produced, the producer owns the development of the evolving software.[2] In this way, the future of the software is open, making ownership or intellectual property difficult within OSS.[2] Licensing and branding can prevent others from stealing it, preserving its status as a public good.[2] Open source software can be considered a public good as it available to everyone and does not decrease in value for others when downloaded by one person.[2] Open source software is unique in that it becomes more valuable as it used and contributed to instead of diminishing the resource which is explained by concepts such as investment in reputation and network effects.[2]

The economic model of open source software can be explained as developers contribute work to projects, creating public benefits.[2] Developers choose projects based on the perceived benefits or costs, such as improved reputation or value of the project.[2] The motivations of developers can come from many different places and reasons, but the important takeaway is that money is not the only or even most important incentivization.[2]

Because economic theory mainly focuses on the consumption of scarce resources, the OSS dynamic can be hard to understand. In OSS, producers become consumers by reaping the rewards of contributing to a project.[2] For example, a developer becomes well regarded by their peers for a successful contribution to an OSS project.[2] The social benefits and interactions of OSS are difficult to account for in economic models as well.[2] Furthermore, the innovation of technology creates constantly changing value discussions and outlooks, making economic model unable to predict social behavior.[2]

Although OSS is theoretically challenging in economic models, it is explainable as a sustainable social activity that requires resources.[2] These resources include time, money, technology and contributions.[2] Many developers have used technology funded by organizations such as universities and governments, though these same organizations benefit from the work done by OSS.[2] As OSS grows, hybrid systems containing OSS and proprietary systems are becoming more common.[2]

Throughout the mid 2000s, more and more tech companies have begun to use OSS.[3] For example, Dell's move of selling computers with GNU/Linux already installed.[3] Microsoft itself has launched a Linux-based operating system despite previous animosity with the OSS movement.[3] Despite these developments, these companies tend to only use OSS for certain purposes, leading to worries that OSS is being taken advantage of by corporations and not given anything in return.[3]

Government Uses

While many governments are interested in implementing and promoting open-source software due to the many benefits provided, a huge issue to be considered is cybersecurity.[4] While accidental vulnerabilities are possible, so are attacks by outside agents.[4] Because of these fears, governmental interest in contributing to the governance of software has become more prominent.[4] However, these are the broad strokes of the issue, with each country having their own specific politicized interactions with open source software and their goals for its implementation.[4] For example, the United States has focused on national security in regard to open source software implementation due to the perceived threat of the increase of open source software activity in countries like China and Russia, with the Department of Defense considering multiple criteria for using OSS.[4] These criteria include: if it comes from and is maintained by trusted sources, whether it will continue to be maintained, if there are dependencies on sub-components in the software, component security and integrity, and foreign governmental influence.[4]

Another issue for governments in regard to open source is their investments in technologies such as operating systems, semiconductors, cloud, and artificial intelligence.[4] These technologies all have implications for global cooperation, again opening up security issues and political consequences.[4] Many countries have to balance technological innovation with technological dependence in these partnerships.[4] For example, after China’s open-source dependent company Huawei was prevented from using Google's android system in 2019, they began to create their own alternative operating system: Harmony OS.[4]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Brock, Amanda (2023). Open Source Law, Policy and Practice (2nd ed.). UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198862345.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Wynants, M., & Cornelis, J. (Eds.). (2005). How open is the future? : Economic, social and cultural scenarios inspired by free and open-source software. ASP.
  3. ^ a b c d Tozzi, Christopher (2017). For Fun and Profit: A History of the Free and Open Source Software Revolution. United States: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262341189.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Pannier, Alice (2022). Software Power: The Economic and Geopolitical Implications of Open Source Software. Études de l’Ifri. ISBN 9791037306418.

Opportunities for Participation

The basic roles OSS participants can fall into multiple categories, beginning with leadership at the center of the project who have control over its execution.[1] Next are the core contributors with a great deal of experience and authority in the project who may guide the other contributors.[1] Non-core contributors have less experience and authority, but regularly contribute and are vital to the project’s development.[1] New Contributors are the least experienced but with mentorship and guidance can become regular contributors.[1]

Contributing

Some possible ways of contributing to open source software include such roles as programming, user interface design and testing, web design, Bug triage, accessibility design and testing, UX design, code testing, and security review and testing.[1] However, there are several ways of contributing to OSS projects even without coding skills.[1] For example, some less technical ways of participating are documentation writing and editing, translation, project management, event organization and coordination, marketing, release management, community management, and public relations and outreach.[1]

Industry Participation

The adoption of open source software by industry is increasing over time.[2] OSS is popular in several industries such as Telecommunications, Aerospace, Healthcare, and Media & Entertainment due to the benefits it provides.[3] Adoption of OSS is more likely in larger organizations and is dependent on the company’s IT usage, operating efficiencies, and the productivity of employees.[2]

Industries are likely to use OSS due to back-office functionality, sales support, research and development, software features, quick deployment, portability across platforms and avoidance of commercial license management.[2] Additionally, lower cost for hardware and ownership are also important benefits.[2]

Prominent Organizations

Organizations that contribute to the development and expansions of Free and Open source software movements exist all over the world.[1] These organizations are dedicated to goals such as teaching and spreading technology.[1] As listed by a former vice president of the Open Source Initiative, some American organizations include the Free Software Foundation, Software Freedom Conservancy, The Open Source Initiative and Software in the Public Interest.[1] Within Europe some notable organizations are Free Software Foundation Europe, Open Source Projects EU (OSP) and Open Forum Europe (OFE).[1] One Australian organization is Linux Australia while Asia has opensource.asia and FOSSAsia.[1] Free and Open Source Software for Africa (FOSSFA) and OpenAfrica are African organizations and Central and South Asia has such organizations as FLISOL and GRUP de Usuarios de Software Libre Peru.[1] Outside of these, many more organizations dedicated to the advancement of open source software exist.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Brasseur, V. M. (2018). Forge your future with open source: build your skills, build your network, build the future of technology. The pragmatic programmers. Raleigh, North Carolina: The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 978-1-68050-301-2.
  2. ^ a b c d Spinellis, Diomidis; Giannikas, Vaggelis (2012). "Organizational adoption of open source software". Journal of Systems and Software. 85 (3): 666–682. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.037.
  3. ^ Zhang, Yiming; Malhotra, Baljeet; Chen, Cheng (2018). "Industry-Wide Analysis of Open Source Security". 2018 16th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST). IEEE: 1–10. doi:10.1109/PST.2018.8514185. ISBN 978-1-5386-7493-2.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Policy1257: I don't like the first paragraph because you defining new terms but aren't using them below. It also feels academic and out-of-place on Wikipedia. In terms of style, please see WP:LOWERCASE and MOS:STRAIGHT and replace external links like Free Software Foundation with wikilinks like Free Software Foundation. Also, you don't need to ask on the talk page before making an edit, be bold! —Dexxor (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I tweaked some things after reading your comment. I am a paid student editor so I would prefer to get feedback before adding anything! Policy1257 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open-source_software/Archive_2&oldid=1223736169"